Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large‐evidence systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

Joshua R. Polanin; Terri D. Pigott; Dorothy L. Espelage; Jennifer K. Grotpeter

doi:10.1002/jrsm.1354

journal article Open Access Jun 24, 2019

Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large‐evidence systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

Joshua R. Polanin

Terri D. Pigott

Dorothy L. Espelage

Jennifer K. Grotpeter

Research Synthesis Methods Vol. 10 No. 3 pp. 330-342 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1002/jrsm.1354

Abstract

Abstract screening is one important aspect of conducting a high‐quality and comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis. Abstract screening allows the review team to conduct the tedious but vital first step to synthesize the extant literature: winnowing down the overwhelming amalgamation of citations discovered through research databases to the citations that should be “full‐text” screened and eventually included in the review. Although it is a critical process, few guidelines have been put forth since the publications of seminal systematic review textbooks. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to provide a practical set of best practice guidelines to help future review teams and managers. Each of the 10 proposed guidelines is explained using real‐world examples or illustrations from applications. We also delineate recent experiences where a team of abstract screeners double‐screened 14 923 abstracts in 89 days.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

31

[1]

Pigott TD "Advances in meta‐analysis" Stat Soc Behav Sci (2012)

[2]

Social network changes and life events across the life span: A meta-analysis.

Cornelia Wrzus, Martha Hänel, Jenny Wagner et al.

Psychological Bulletin 10.1037/a0028601

[3]

10.3102/0034654318815707

[4]

Wilson DB "Campbell systematic review 2018:5 crime and justice coordinating group police‐initiated diversion for youth to prevent future delinquent behavior: a systematic review" Campbell Syst Rev (2018)

[5]

10.1002/14651858.cd001190.pub3

[6]

Reed JG (2009)

[7]

Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry

Rohit Borah, Andrew W Brown, Patrice L Capers et al.

BMJ Open 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545

[8]

HigginsJ DeeksJ.Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011).www.handbook.cochrane.org. Published 2011.

[9]

Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care

Evelina Tacconelli

The Lancet Infectious Diseases 10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70065-7

[10]

Medicine I of.Find What Works In Health Care. Standards for Systematic Reviews.;2011.https://www.nihlibrary.nih.gov/sites/default/files/Finding_What_Works_in_Health_Care_Standards_for_Systematic_Reviews_IOM_2011.pdf.

[11]

McDonaghM PetersonK RainaP ChangS ShekelleP.Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews.;2013.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126701/?report=classic.

[12]

Cooper H (2009)

[13]

Lipsey MW (2001)

[14]

10.1002/jrsm.1237

[15]

10.1186/s13643-015-0067-6

[16]

10.1002/jrsm.1093

[17]

Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?

Hilda Bastian, Paul Glasziou, Iain Chalmers

PLoS Medicine 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326

[18]

10.4135/9781412984997

[19]

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

L. Shamseer, D. Moher, M. Clarke et al.

BMJ 10.1136/bmj.g7647

[20]

10.1186/s13750-017-0099-6

[21]

BruntonV StansfieldC CairdJ ThomasJ.Finding relevant studies.Gough D Oliver S Thomas J An Introd to Syst RevSage London.April 2017.http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1542859/. Accessed February 11 2019.

[22]

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration

Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff et al.

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

[23]

10.1145/2110363.2110464

[24]

Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz et al.

Systematic Reviews 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

[25]

Covidance.Covidence—accelerate your systematic review.https://www.covidence.org/about‐us. Published2017. Accessed November 28 2017.

[26]

Thomas J (2010)

[27]

Saha TK (2013)

[28]

Olorisade BK (2016)

[29]

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011

[30]

CroftA VassalloD Army MR‐J of the R 1999undefined.Handsearching the journal of the royal army medical corps for trials.researchgate.net.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ashley_Croft/publication/12879894_Handsearching_the_Journal_of_the_Royal_Army_Medical_Corps_for_Trials/links/0f31752dff9c88a8e7000000/Handsearching‐the‐Journal‐of‐the‐Royal‐Army‐Medical‐Corps‐for‐Trials.pdf. Accessed March 30 2019.

[31]

When and Why Incentives (Don't) Work to Modify Behavior

Uri Gneezy, Stephan Meier, Pedro Rey-Biel

Journal of Economic Perspectives 10.1257/jep.25.4.191

Cited By

302

Motivating Motivation Regulation Research—An Evidence and Gap Map Approach

Maike Trautner, Carola Grunschel · 2025

Educational Psychology Review

A comprehensive guide to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research

Ernesto Calderon Martinez, Patricia E. Ghattas Hasbun · 2025

Medicine

Development of Prompt Templates for Large Language Model–Driven Screening in Systematic Reviews

Christian Cao, Jason Sang · 2025

Annals of Internal Medicine

Pathways Into, Desistance From, and Risk Factors Related to Cyber-Dependent Crime: A Systematic Narrative Review

Joeri Loggen, Asier Moneva · 2024

Victims & Offenders

Healthcare professionals’ experiences of job satisfaction when providing person-centred care: a systematic review of qualitative studies

Kristoffer Gustavsson, Cornelia van Diepen · 2023

BMJ Open

Leishmaniosis in Rodents Caused by Leishmania infantum: A Review of Studies in the Mediterranean Area

M. Magdalena Alcover, M. Cristina Riera · 2021

Frontiers in Veterinary Science

Experiencing loneliness in parenthood: a scoping review

R Nowland, G THOMSON · 2021

Perspectives in Public Health

Metrics

302

Citations

31

References

Details

Published: Jun 24, 2019
Vol/Issue: 10(3)
Pages: 330-342
License: View

Authors

J

Joshua R. Polanin

American Institutes for Research Washington, DC USA

T

Terri D. Pigott

Loyola University Chicago Chicago Illinois USA

D

Dorothy L. Espelage

University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA

J

Jennifer K. Grotpeter

Development Services Group, Inc Bethesda Maryland USA

Funding

Institute of Education Sciences Award: R305B170019

National Institute of Justice Award: 2016‐CK‐BX‐0012

Cite This Article

Joshua R. Polanin, Terri D. Pigott, Dorothy L. Espelage, et al. (2019). Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large‐evidence systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(3), 330-342. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1354

Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large‐evidence systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

You May Also Like